Standing Committee D

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Licensing Bill [Lords]

Clause 6 - Statement of licensing policy

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in
clause 6, page 3, line 38, leave out subsection (1).

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 80, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 25, leave out subsection (7).
 Amendment No. 135, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 26, after 'policies', insert 
 'including policies relating to the management of cumulative impact and saturation,'.
 Amendment No. 136, in 
clause 19, page 12, line 8, after 'application', insert 
 'unless a saturation policy is in place,'.
 Amendment No. 137, in 
clause 31, page 17, line 31, after 'made', insert 
 'subject to the adoption of a saturation policy by the licensing authority,'.
 Amendment No. 138, in 
clause 35, page 20, line 18, at end insert 
 'unless a saturation policy is in place.'.

Malcolm Moss: Amendments Nos. 75 and 80 are fairly simple and are essentially probing amendments. The Government need to justify why they deem it necessary to prescribe matters in this way, particularly with regard to the duration of the licensing policy. Why must each licensing authority publish a licensing statement every three years, which will follow on from fairly extensive consultations each time? In any event, subsection (3) asks each licensing authority to take into account the views of people in the local area. Subsection (4) provides licensing authorities with the power to revise policy at any time. It is not necessary to prescribe at the outset that a local authority has to go through that hoop every three years.
 The Government have required local authorities to carry out reviews of all sorts of things at three-year intervals, so they are bringing this matter into line with what they have already asked authorities to do. If it is not necessary to do it, why make a requirement to do it? If a process is working well, we see no need for a review to be prescribed. If it is not working well, there is provision for reviews to take place as and when the local licensing authority deems it important and necessary to do so. 
 The Government protest all the time that the Bill is deregulatory, but the clause contains an instruction to 
 local authorities that they must set up a completely new licensing policy or review the one that they have got every three years. Unless the Government come up with good reasons, there is no need for that over-prescription.

Kim Howells: We will keep coming back to the fact that the Bill is an attempt to balance the effectiveness of local government licensing authorities, which rightly seek freedom and flexibility, with the interests of the industry which wants a stable and transparent business environment within which to thrive and, above all, the interests of citizens and consumers, who have a right to live and spend their leisure time in a safe and pleasant environment.
 As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) told us, amendment No. 75 probes one of the key provisions of the Bill. The clause requires licensing authorities to determine and publish their policy with respect to the exercise of their licensing functions every three years. Before determining their policy or revising it, they must consult local bodies and those with an interest in, and who are affected by, licensing matters. The consultation is with the police, the fire authority, representatives of holders of premises licences, club premises certificates and personal licences, and representatives of local residents and businesses. It is important to keep that policy fully informed as a result of consultation and up to date. I understand that the industry wants as little change and upheaval as possible, but the requirement to determine the policy every three years will balance the industry's need for stability against the flexibility and room for manoeuvre that licensing authorities will require to tackle local issues effectively. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked why there will be a three-year basis and why, if things are going pretty well, authorities should have to do this at all. The three-year basis reflects the requirement on local authorities to set out their crime prevention strategies every three years under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It makes good sense to match up and integrate those documents rather than to follow a somewhat vague idea of a licensing policy period or have no regular review of the policy.

Malcolm Moss: Does the Minister mean by that that the review of the licensing policy should be coterminous with the review under the 1998 Act, or will there be different three-year periods?

Kim Howells: No, there may well be different periods, although if a local authority wants to make them coterminous there is no reason why it should not. We have chosen three years because that is a fair length of time and provides a good balance, offering a good sense of continuity. As hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have pointed out in previous sittings, things can change very quickly, especially in city centres. New businesses can arrive and others can close down. Three years is a pretty good balance.

Malcolm Moss: I accept that argument, but as I said in my opening remarks, that is covered by subsection (4), which says:
''During each three year period, a licensing authority must keep its policy under review and make such revisions to it, at such times, as it considers appropriate.''
 We have there in the Bill the wherewithal for authorities to react to changes in circumstances, which the Minister mentioned. The question of why we should have a formal three-year assessment is still not answered.

Kim Howells: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has made the case. Few changes and little tweaking may be required, but three years is a good period for a local authority to ensure that its licensing policy reflects any changes that may have taken place.
 To ensure full consultation and an open and transparent process, the Secretary of State will be able to set, through secondary legislation, a framework of rules to apply to the determination and revision of that policy. Subsection (7), with which amendment No. 80 deals, provides the means through which the Secretary of State may set out such a framework to ensure that there is a level playing field. It is intended that licensing authorities will have considerable latitude within that framework to give them the flexibility to tackle the needs of local individuals and businesses. The regulations could cover, for example, the way in which policies should be drawn up and revised, but they will not dictate the content of the policy. 
 I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Mark Field: I apologise for being slightly late this afternoon, Mr. Gale.
 I shall speak to amendments Nos. 135 to 138, which deal with cumulative effect and saturation. Notwithstanding the words of encouragement from the Minister on the allowance for local authorities to have their own policies in place, there are some grave concerns, particularly in the parts of central London that I represent. I suspect that they are replicated all over the country in stress areas of the large-scale alcohol and entertainment industry. 
 Interestingly, entertainment saturation is one issue that has failed to be addressed in the draft London plan put forward by the Mayor of London and undergoing extensive consultation, much of which involves a sensible sense of vision—I fear that that will not necessarily be executed under the current incumbent. There is little doubt that deregulation and changing lifestyles have resulted in entertainment venues staying open longer and closing later at night than ever before. The growth in the late-night economy means that more people are out at night and that in turn has led to an over-concentration of entertainment venues in particular areas at the expense of residential and other business users. 
 Residential users have not gone away. They remain an active part of life in many cities and it is important therefore that fuller emphasis is given to entertainment saturation when setting up a statement of licensing 
 policy. As I have said, there is a concern that the proposals in the Bill are overly prescriptive. Inevitably, there will be some opportunity for local authorities to have some say, but the worry is that we are tweaking at the edges rather than fundamentally reviewing the effects of cumulative impact and saturation. 
 Obviously, the Government have listened and I give the Department some credit for listening. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear!''] I hasten to add that ''some'' is the operative word. One does not know for what I was about to give credit—perhaps I should stay silent on that point. That is always best, rather than putting both my feet into it. 
 The Government have partially reversed their position and accepted that it is necessary for some licensing authorities to be able to deal with the overall problem of saturation. There is still a concern that there may be too great a concentration of licensed premises in particular areas. I appreciate that there is a danger that that may sound like special pleading and I accept that Soho and Covent Garden in my constituency are not typical areas. They are exceptional areas and it would be wrong to couch the whole of the Licensing Bill with Soho and Covent Garden and nothing else at all in mind. However, it would equally be a concern if the Bill ignored the residential interests in our inner cities. 
 All hon. Members are committed to the rebuilding of our inner cities. Indeed, some cities have already made considerable progress. One needs only to look at the centre of Manchester or Liverpool, which had become extremely derelict by the 1980s. In the past decade, under Governments of both colours, there have been significant improvements in those areas and their vibrancy should not be lessened. 
 We do not want an overly restrictive licensing regime, but if those areas are to continue to thrive and to have an active residential population, it is important that some balance is reached. There is understandable concern about saturation and the need to give the licensing authority some safeguards so that it can take account of cumulative effect. 
 The Minister will rightly point out that some of those matters are in the hands of planning authorities. It is perhaps idealistic to assume that planning and licensing will be two entirely discrete areas. I very much agreed when the Minister said this morning that the last thing that business or, for that matter, anyone else wanted was an uncertainty of regime, in which the authority gets a second bite of the cherry and can say, ''We lost as far as planning is concerned, but we will now throw the licensing book at you.'' That would be wrong, but one must accept that planning and licensing matters will not be entirely divorced from one another, particularly when it comes to aspects such as the saturation that affects many of our larger cities. 
 I hope that the Minister will give considerable thought to the representations that he will continue to receive on the matter and that there will be no question that local authorities, particularly in the middle of our bigger cities, will be able to consider cumulative effect and saturation in drawing up their policy; in other 
 words, that they will be given an opportunity to devise a statement of licensing policy under clause 6 that will take account of local factors that may not necessarily be widely seen throughout the rest of the country. Without that safeguard there is an understandably real fear that some of the good intentions underlying the Bill will come to naught.

Kim Howells: The amendments deal with concerns about cumulative impact and saturation. I understand the thinking behind them, but I remind the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), as he has reminded the Committee, that we have developed the policy since the Bill was published to deal with those concerns. We have tabled amendments to tackle them and we have also promised to tackle them through statutory guidance and have published a draft of what that guidance might say. Our changes make the proposed amendments unnecessary.
 Amendment No. 135, which would affect the provision in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State, would single out areas that do not in themselves comprise licensing objectives. It is not the purpose of the delegated power to prescribe the content of a licensing authority's policy with respect to the exercise of its licensing functions. The management of cumulative effect and saturation is not in itself a licensing function, as the hon. Gentleman told us. 
 The Bill tries to establish a workable and effective balance between the rights and interests of local people and businesses and those of licensees and the industry. The Bill provides for authorities, such as the police, fire and environmental health, as well as local residents and businesses to have a say. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise businesses because some will be keen to see a number of new licensed premises in the area. He mentioned Manchester and a number other cities where the big pub chains and developers in that sector of the economy are clearly, almost single-handedly in some places, responsible for the rehabilitation of the areas that he described. That is an important consideration. We certainly do not want that to be blighted or stymied in any way. 
 The Bill provides for those authorities to have a say in all applications for provisional statements, applications for new licences, and applications to vary operating conditions, and to call for the review of existing licences. When one of the authorities makes a relevant representation, a hearing will be held. The necessary and proportionate conditions can be attached to the licence or statement to meet any relevant concerns. 
 We have introduced a package of measures to allow licensing authorities to deal effectively with cumulative effect. For example, as a result of a Government amendment that was accepted in another place on Report, we have added the local planning authority to the list of responsible authorities identified in the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know, because he will have been lobbied as hard as I have been by the licensing industry, that they are suspicious and worried 
 about that. I made a point of saying this morning that there must be some degree of proportionality. We cannot have companies spending huge amounts of money going through planning processes only for the result of that process to be blocked further down the line on the whim of a local authority. It is important to remember that. 
 A further Government amendment places a duty on the licensing committee to consider reports from other local authority committees where a matter that relates to a licensing function and another function of the authority is referred to the licensing committee. In effect, that means that if the licensing committee were considering a licensing matter on which representations had been received about saturation from, say, the local planning authority, it would consider a report on the matter before arriving at a decision. That is a big step forward and a variation in the way the Bill was originally framed. It will ensure that all relevant factors, including cumulative effect where that has an impact on the licensing objectives, can be taken fully into account. In guidance, we make it clear that licensing authorities will be in a position to take the cumulative effect of licensed premises into account where that exists and where it has an impact on the licensing objectives. 
 As the hon. Gentleman said, each application would need to be considered individually because there will be some good applications which will do a great deal, even for areas where there may already be many licensed premises. For example, a good quality restaurant or music venue—instead of what we have referred to as vertical drinking establishments—might add to the existing mix, which will be welcome. Cities in Europe often have a greater cluster of licensed establishments, but the mix is inevitably greater. That is a civilising influence—I make no excuse for using those words—which makes the environment more attractive for all sorts of people, including young people aged between 18 and 24 who want to become legless and fall over before 11 o'clock. The licensing authority would still have the power to refuse to grant a licence or issue a statement on the basis of cumulative effect when it would impact on the licensing objectives. 
 We want business to thrive for the sake of investment, employment and local and national economies, and not to be subject to unnecessary burdens or restrictions. That is why, when no representations are made, no hearing will be required. It is also why representations will not be considered when they are not related to the likely impact of the grant of the licence or its variation on the licensing objectives, or when the same representations are made repeatedly, frivolously or vexatiously. Frankly, I believe that when a licensing authority has gone to the trouble of framing an effective policy and, among other things, makes reference to local problems of saturation in respect of certain types of licensed premises, it is improbable that an application would be granted without any representation. 
 I hope that I have given the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire the reassurance he seeks and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister's counter-argument to amendment No. 75 that we should look again at the mandatory three-year review is that he believes that it is a pretty good period. We also believe that it is a pretty good period, but that does not mean that we should pluck ''three'' out of the air and shove it into the Bill.
 I come to some amendments with a more rational approach. The Minister admitted that the reviews will not be coterminous and if part of the objective behind the Bill is to look at crime, disorder, nuisance and such problems, it would have been sensible to tie that in so that both reviews were considered at the same time. However, I take on board the Minister's response to the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in
clause 6, page 4, line 3, leave out from 'section' to end of line 6 and insert 'relevant period' means— 
 (a) in the case of a council whose members are wholly or partly elected every four years, a period of four years beginning with the date of coming into force of this Act; 
 (b) in the case of council whose members are wholly or partly elected every three years, a period of three years beginning with the date of coming into force of this Act.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 77, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 7, leave out 'three year' and insert 'relevant'.
 Amendment No. 78, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 19, leave out 'three year' and insert 'relevant'.

Malcolm Moss: As I mentioned, the amendments follow on from the group that we have just discussed. Amendment No. 76 is sensible and pragmatic and has the support of many local authorities and councillors as well as the Beer and Pub Association, so there is also support for it within the industry. It would require the licensing policy review to be tied in with the four-yearly elections to any council when the composition of the council and its political hue might change and, therefore, the outlook on licensing policy might also change. It provides that when a council is reconstituted with new councillors after a democratic election, it should consider its licensing policy. It may well consider all sorts of other things—in fact, new councils invariably do—but that would be a logical time to sit down and consider licensing policies. Depending on the political composition of that council, it may take a different view, but it should at least communicate its policy clearly and unequivocally.
 The amendment would allow four-yearly reviews that tie in with local elections. After all, the Government have argued consistently that the Bill is a shift to a more democratic system, not least because licences are going to be issued by local authorities as opposed to magistrates. People will have a democratic opportunity to oppose and object in a way that they are not allowed to at the moment. The Bill is couched 
 in terms of allowing better representation for ordinary voters who vote in council elections, who will determine the licensing policy. 
 The amendment is logical and the Government in their over-prescription—by determining the three-year period and whom councils should consult—are overriding the flexibility and local democratic input that local authorities feel is very important.

Andrew Turner: I support the amendment. Before he moved it, I was scribbling some notes on the possible impact of a three-year rule.
 Elections are taking place later this year in many districts throughout the country. They will take place again in 2007 and 2011. The Bill may come into effect in 2004, which will mean that the triennial review of the licensing policy will take place in 2007. That is wonderful because it will coincide with local elections, but the next triennial review will take place in 2010. It is almost inconceivable that a group taking control of a local authority in 2011 would not want to review at other points, even if there were no other reasons for reviewing the licensing policy. They would then undertake a review in 2011, but the next triennial review would come up in 2013. The subsequent local elections would be in 2015. We are going to end up with a series of staggered reviews. 
 Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot see any opportunity for getting out of that three-year round—based on the date when the Bill takes effect—even if there is a further and perhaps just as broadly based and widely encompassing review between the triennial reviews. A council cannot say, ''We have done a review that is good enough. We can leave the arrangements as they are for another three years or until we feel it is necessary.'' The provision is simply an example of the Government being over-prescriptive. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Kim Howells: This is a question of balance. Industry would like a period longer than three years. Some local authorities would like the review to be more frequent. In the Government's view, three years strikes the right balance. I hope that in the light of the longer debate that we had earlier—I have nothing new to add—the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister did not use the words ''a pretty good figure'' again. He avoided that. We are still not persuaded by the Government's arguments. In my discussions with local authorities, I have not come across anyone representing the Local Government Association or local authorities who wanted the period to be shorter than three years. Most of them wanted a longer period before the review took place. The Government are obviously not going to move on this point and there are other more important things to discuss, however. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in
clause 6, page 4, line 11, leave out from beginning to 'businesses' in line 18 and insert— 
 '(c) holders of premises licences issued by that authority; 
 (d) holders of club premises certificates issued by that authority; 
 (e) holders of personal licences living in or carrying on business in the area of that authority; and 
 (f) '.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 103, in
clause 6, page 4, line 16, leave out 'issued by' and insert 
 'resident in or carrying on business in the area of'.

Andrew Turner: This matter is only one marginal step up the pecking order of what matters are more important for discussion. I do not claim that it is of huge importance, but it illustrates the Government's approach and, perhaps, that of some local authorities although I am not sure about that.
 The question is whether a local licensing authority should be required to consult representative bodies—or such persons as it thinks are representative—or the people whom its policies affect. Amendment No. 104 simply removes from clause 6(3)(c), (d) and (e) the words 
''such persons as the licensing authority considers to be representative of''.
 That means that the authority would be required to consult the holders of premises licences, club licences and personal licences, not their representatives. Under amendment No. 103, it would be required to consult the holders of personal licences 
''resident in or carrying on business in''
 the local authority area. 
 The amendments were drafted when there was still a central licensing authority in the Bill, but it still seems appropriate that, even where a personal licence is issued by another authority, all personal licensees responsible for premises in the area of the licensing authority should be consulted.

Kim Howells: The Bill has been drafted to give licensing authorities the flexibility to decide who are the appropriate people or bodies to represent licence holders in local circumstances. It has been drafted to balance the requirement that consultation should be open, transparent and thorough with the need to guard against it becoming an unnecessarily lengthy, bureaucratic and costly exercise. I hope that I can convince the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment No. 103, although laudable in its aim, is a little misconceived. The statement of licensing policy will in most cases set out the policy on personal licences by the licensing authority, rather than on how individual personal licence holders resident in the licensing authority's area go about their business. That aspect of licensing will be managed largely through the operation of premises licences, rather than personal licences. It therefore makes sense to consult those to whom the licensing authority has issued personal licences. 
 In addition, many personal licence holders may live or work in the relevant licensing authority area, but by no means all of them would be specified on a premises licence for premises in the area. They might not even 
 work in the area. The licensing authority would not know who those individuals were or at which premises they were working. If a personal licence holder is resident in the area, the Bill already identifies them as a consultee—as a person or persons considered representative of businesses and residents in the area. 
 Furthermore, under the system set out in the Bill, the licensing authority that issues a personal licence continues, throughout the life of that licence, to function as the relevant licensing authority. Developments in licensing authority policies may affect holders of personal licences issued by that authority, so it is only right that they should be consulted on any such developments. I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will withdraw the amendment.

Mark Hoban: I am perplexed by subsection (3)(e). If Fareham borough council issued a personal licence to someone who then moved to Newcastle, or became the licensee of the village inn in Sacriston, who would Fareham borough council contact as the representative of that person no longer resident in the borough?

Kim Howells: When the personal licence holder was appointed as the designated premises supervisor, he or she would have been registered with the licensing authority as the person who should be contacted with respect to whatever was going on in that licensed premises. They would be that person.

Roger Gale: I call the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) to reply.
Mr. Moss rose—

Roger Gale: Order. I am sorry. I think that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has to reply.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is not the only one who is confused. I was confused not by you, Mr. Gale, but by the Minister's reply. I accept that amendment No. 103 is redundant because the central licensing authority has disappeared, but the situation is hard to understand and perhaps he will clarify it. Does the clause require the authority only to consult persons who are representative or can it consult licence holders? Does the clause include all licence holders if that is what the local authority has decided? If that is so, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Kim Howells: I am happy to answer that question. In preparing its policy, the licensing authority is required by the clause to consult various bodies: the police, the fire authority, representatives of personal licence holders, premises licence holders, club premises certificate holders, representatives of business and residents. Those consultees have been described to ensure that there is consistent and full consultation from licensing authority to licensing authority. The bodies will have to be consulted regardless of local circumstances and the individual decision of a licensing authority. That will help to ensure that policies are determined following the fully informed input of the stakeholders in the industry and both professional and local experts.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for that answer, which is informative but not so informative that it answers the question. Do such persons include the licence holders? Is an authority permitted under the clause to consult everyone who holds a licence at a particular time?

Kim Howells: Yes. If the licensing authority believed that the appointed representative of the personal licence holders was someone whom they did not believe reflected what personal licence holders in that area actually felt about an issue, there is nothing stopping them from contacting the personal licence holders directly. I hope that that is clear enough for the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Turner: I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Licensing committees

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in
clause 7, page 4, line 29, leave out from 'of' to end of line 30 and insert 
 'such members of the authority as the authority shall determine'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 101, in 
clause 7, page 4, line 30, leave out 'ten', and insert 'five'.
 No. 102, in 
clause 7, page 4, line 30, at end insert 
 'none of whom shall be members of the executive of that authority'.

Malcolm Moss: I now know where I am.
 Amendment No. 81 deals with the size of the licensing committees and the lack of flexibility and discretion in the deployment of councillors who serve on them through a provision dictating the number of councillors. The Bill states that such a committee must consist 
''of at least ten, but not more than fifteen, members''.
 That provision is not flexible enough because it does not reflect the varying sizes of local authorities in terms of the population of their areas, the number of councillors who serve on a council and the number of establishments and premises in their local authority area, which is particularly pertinent to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Westminster city council has a disproportionately huge number of premises to deal with compared with any other council in the country. If the number must be specified, what is the point of making the band so narrow in the first place? Furthermore, the clause limits a local council based in an urban area to the same number of committee members as a small council based in a rural area. 
 The provision is also unreasonable given the length of the transitional period. Many local authorities, particularly those in urban areas with many premises and establishments, will be inundated during the six-month period with applications for renewals and 
 variations of existing licences. By imposing the limit so early in the process, the Government could jeopardise the smooth implementation of the Bill and cause gridlock from the outset in some cases. To avoid that, local authorities will have to refuse some applications. Such decisions will go to appeal and that in turn will clog up the magistrates courts, which will have to take the appeals on board. 
 The Government are being prescriptive in not allowing councils the flexibility to determine the size of their licensing committee according not only to the size of the council area but, as in Westminster's case, to the number of premises and potential applications that they will have to deal with during the six-month transition period. We ask the Government to consider the amendment, which would leave the size of the licensing committee to the discretion of the local authority.

Mark Field: I entirely endorse the comments of my hon. Friend. He hit the nail on the head when he said that we would enter uncharted waters with the transitional arrangements. That applies not only to the city of Westminster, although it will be the most acute case, given the number of licensed premises. The Bill proposes a six-month transition period. There is a real risk of a chaotic effect on licensing if the period is too short.
 In so far as there is permission for non-determination, there is an assumption for the conversion of a licence that a two-month gap between an application and non-determination will mean that the licensee will be given authority to proceed on the previous terms. However, for the variation of a licence, the two-month delay will result in an automatic rejection of the variation proposal. 
 Therefore, it is clear that if the transition period is to be short, there must be far more flexibility in clause 7 to ensure that licensing committees can be larger. Although everyone may have grand plans for the transition arrangements, the practical reality is that many applications will come through in the last few days—that is as inevitable as night following day. There will be a massive rush and the risk of a somewhat chaotic state of affairs.

Bob Blizzard: Perhaps I am missing something. Would the hon. Gentleman explain how having more members would automatically lead to a speedier determination of the application? My personal experience of councils leads me to believe that the more members there are, the longer they take to discuss a matter.

Mark Field: It may be said that the quickest and easiest committees are committees of one. That is what I often felt when I was running a business. When I was an employee I took a somewhat different view, but that is life. My argument is that licensing committees will have sub-committees to deal with individual applications. We want to maximise the number of people on the full licensing committee so that there are more people on the sub-committees to deal with day-to-day applications during the transition period.

Kevan Jones: Unfortunately, the Bill should be renamed the Westminster city
 council Bill because everything seems to be being skewed towards Westminster. Is it not a fact that if there were more councillors, more officials would be needed to administer the paper work and to prepare for the committees? As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said, increasing the number of councillors is irrelevant.

Mark Field: The fact is that we are taking it for granted in the transition arrangements that the overwhelming majority of applications will be for conversion rather than variation. The process will have to be gone through, so the more councillors who are available to sit on sub-committees, the better.

Kevan Jones: But will not some cases be delegated rather than being subject to full hearings of the licensing authority?

Mark Field: That may apply to a certain extent and will depend on the policy of councils, but when there is even a small number of objectors, perhaps just a single objector, applications cannot be delegated and must go to a fully fledged licensing committee meeting. Given the obvious cynicism of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), he will never dare to live in the city of Westminster because I shall ensure that council officers, particularly those concerned with parking regulations, are made aware of his concern that all laws start in Westminster, as in fact they do in a literal sense.
 My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has made some sensible suggestions. I understand why the Government want to introduce the legislation quickly, but if the transition arrangements are to be so short—we shall discuss whether six months is too short—and set in stone, it is inevitable that more councillors will be needed from which to choose when constituting a sub-committee to ensure that the process operates smoothly.

Mark Hoban: I approach the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster from a different angle. If the hon. Member for North Durham objects to the Bill and suggests that it should be called the Westminster Bill, let me put in a bid to add Fareham to its title. Fareham borough council, in line with Government recommendations for streamlining councils, has only 31 members in an urban constituency. There are nine members on the planning committee and I suspect that it will be argued that a member of the planning committee should not be a member of the licensing committee and that the two functions should be kept separate when considering licensing matters. There are six members on the executive and, given the burdens imposed on executive members under the Government's changes to local government functions and the exercise of powers, perhaps they should also be excluded from considering licensing matters. That means that 15 members of the 31-member council may be excluded from those deliberations.

Kevan Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it would not be appropriate for councillors to sit on a planning committee as well as a licensing committee?

Mark Hoban: If someone has determined a planning application to build a new restaurant, how would it be perceived if that person, as a member of a licensing committee, also decided the terms and conditions of the licence to be granted?

Andrew Turner: I endorse what my hon. Friend says. Advice is being sent out from planning offices throughout the country that anyone who has ''expressed a view'' on the worthiness of a planning application should be debarred from sitting on the planning committee that considers the application. I can see exactly the same advice being issued in respect of a licence when it is obvious that somebody sitting on a planning committee has approved something in the expectation that the premises will be licensed and wants to sit on a licensing committee to consider the same issue.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting me on that point. It is a matter of people's perceptions of the integrity and fairness of the planning and licensing process. If people exercise the same functions on two committees, applicants who feel unfairly treated by either of those committees in respect of an application for the same premises may well think that the committees are biased against them.
 A relatively small, efficiently run council, such as Fareham, which has 31 members, will have to draw between 10 and 15 people from a pool of 16 councillors. There may be some authorities where it is right to increase the size of the licensing committee to deal with particular issues in the area, but we should be enabling smaller authorities to put together a licensing committee with fewer than 10 members. 
 Fareham council also happens to have a licensing and regulatory affairs committee. As well as considering the licensing of pet shops and sex shops and other issues, it considers public entertainment licences. That committee has seven members, who are not on the planning and development control committee. For a small authority, seven members may well be sufficient, particularly after the transitional period has expired. Why can we not give more discretion to local authorities to enable them to determine the appropriate size of committees, according to the burden of responsibility that they have and the number of councillors who are available to fulfil the roles?

Andrew Turner: It is noteworthy that, in objecting to the amendment supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster and his argument that 15 is too small a number to constitute a licensing committee, the hon. Member for North Durham argued that one does not need that many people and yet, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), who speaks from the Front Bench and who argued that 10 was too large a minimum number, the hon. Gentleman argued that 10 was exactly right and seven was inappropriate. One could tell from the shrugs and remarks—such as ''rubbish''—that he was making during my hon. Friend's contribution that he feels that between 10 and 15 is exactly the right number. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his loyalty to his Minister, but
 there must be some justification in the Minister's mind for setting the numbers.
 I confess that I was looking beyond the transitional phase when I drafted amendment No. 101. I felt that, in due course, and particularly given the additional duration of the applications, the normal flow of licensing applications, in the case of an authority which did not receive a huge number of applications, would not place such a huge burden on councillors that it would be necessary to have 10 trained councillors—of course, training would be necessary—on the licensing committee to administer that flow. Five would probably be enough. I am sure that that argument is right for small authorities. 
 I did not attempt to consider whether 15 was too small a maximum number, but I endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster that there will be a huge burden for a short time during the transitional period. I find it hard to see why the Minister cannot leave that discretion with local authorities. In my experience of education, there is not a single area in which the size of education committees is determined by the Secretary of State or legislation. That simply does not happen. As far as I know, nothing in any other legislation requires local authorities to set a committee of a particular size—say, of more than three—and I find it hard to see what is magical about between 10 and 15. Can the Minister demonstrate what is magical about that?

Kim Howells: This has been an interesting debate. I am glad that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight did not this time point the finger at me for snorting and grunting my disagreement with him during his speech. I would point the finger at my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, because he is a vigorous debater of such issues.
 Similar arguments to those expressed by Opposition Members have been put directly to me by representatives of local government. However, as in so many matters, the Bill has to balance competing interests. In this case, it has to weigh the understandable concerns of local authorities on this score—they have been well articulated by hon. Members—against the industry's legitimate desire to see some consistency in the way in which licensing authorities will operate. The Bill therefore provides a framework that will give licensing authorities and by extension the industry the tools with which to process applications quickly and efficiently through the sub-committee system. 
 During the development of the Bill and the policy that underpins it, we have sought views from a wide range of stakeholders including representatives of local government at all levels. We have concluded that limits of not less than 10 and not more than 15 will ensure that licensing committees are not so small as to make decision making unacceptably slow because of a lack of members and not so large as to make the conduct of business unmanageable because of too many members. I want to endorse the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, who has had a lot of experience here. As we know, north-easterners 
 can talk a glass eye to sleep at the best of times and I am sure that he has had many painful committee hearings. 
 We are still of that view. Amendment No. 81 would allow a licensing authority absolute freedom to determine the size of its licensing committee. Key to an understanding of the Government's point of view is a grasp of the principle that in the majority of cases we expect applications to be processed administratively at official level without the need for a hearing. In those circumstances, there will be no need for any member of the licensing committee to become involved at all. The policy behind the Bill has been designed to promote co-operation and collaboration between licensees and the licensing authority. Most issues should be ironed out by the applicant through dialogue with the licensing authority and the responsible authorities and through reference to the statement of licensing policy, before an application is even submitted. 
 Where relevant representations are received and a hearing is needed, members of the licensing committee will have to become involved, but I should make one thing absolutely clear at this point. The whole licensing committee does not have to—and, indeed, should not—consider and determine every application. The Bill provides for functions of the licensing committee to be delegated to sub-committees of three that may sit in parallel. Doing the sums, a licensing committee comprising the maximum 15 members could have five sub-committees sitting at the same time to consider the small proportion of applications that cannot be determined effectively at official level. 
 I do not want to keep highlighting the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham above anyone else's, but he put his finger on it because we have spent a long time discussing such matters with central London authorities, which have voiced very special concerns. I should say at this point that when I met representatives of Westminster council recently, it transpired that the Bill as we have framed it reflects that council's arrangements for public entertainment licences. That system appears to work well in processing applications. 
 The licensing committee may delegate any of its functions under the Bill to a sub-committee established by it. The full licensing committee need meet only rarely. That said, to avoid large unwieldy committees, the Bill specifies a maximum size of 15. I recognise that local authorities vary in size greatly and that 10 members may constitute half the total for some authorities, as the hon. Member for Fareham made clear.

Mark Hoban: I have two questions for the Minister. First, will he enlighten the Committee as to the current rules of licensing committees? Does a provision in current legislation require licensing committees to be a certain size? It would be interesting to know whether such a provision exists or whether the proposal is another regulatory burden. Secondly, if there is a delegation to sub-committees of three, when is a sub-committee technically inquorate? What is the key number?

Kim Howells: The sub-committee must have three members to be quorate. The hon. Member for Fareham talked about Fareham's committee having only seven members, which suggests—although I do not know for certain—that numbers can vary dramatically throughout the country. We are drafting new legislation on the basis of the consultation that we have undertaken with all of the stakeholders. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight is right: he referred to the size of the Committee as a ''magical figure''. There is no explanation for what makes a particular figure magical, but we think that we have chosen a sensible figure and a sensible range of members.
 Everyone involved in the licensing regime will benefit from the ability to convene hearings, should they be required, in a timely fashion. The system set out in the Bill allows the licensing authority to respond quickly. By providing for a system of sub-committees to handle individual applications and an upper limit on the size of the full licensing committee, we can place the right emphasis on swift and efficient decision making. The Bill strikes the right balance. 
 Amendment No. 102 would prevent members of the local authority executive from sitting on the licensing committee. There have been suggestions of mistrust and the opportunity for ill feeling and so forth, but such arguments do local authorities an injustice. They have a difficult job to do. 
 The House strikes me as being like a medieval monastery—I am always finding hon. Friends and hon. Members ''cwched'' away, gossiping in little corners. There have always been cabals in this building and we are not above suspicion any more than local authorities, but we try to make things work, which is why we have rules and standing orders. We should be more generous towards local authorities about the way in which they deal with such difficult and sensitive matters. 
 Our arguments for limiting the size of licensing committees relate to the speed and efficiency with which applications are handled and nothing more. I do not see how the presence or absence of members of the executive affects that objective in any way. I hope that amendment No. 102 will be withdrawn on that basis.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Exercise and delegation of functions

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in
clause 8, page 5, leave out lines 13 and 14.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 94, in 
clause 8, page 5, line 19, leave out 
 '(unless the matter is urgent)'.
 Amendment No. 93, in 
clause 8, page 5, line 22, leave out '5(b)' and insert '5(a)'.
 Amendment No. 95, in 
clause 8, page 5, line 30, after 'unable', insert 
 'by virtue of conflict of interest'.

Andrew Turner: I shall deal with the amendments in that order, Mr. Gale. Amendment No. 100 would remove from the authority the power to arrange for a committee that is not the licensing committee to discharge the licensing function, because there would be a potential conflict of interest on such a committee. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Devon, ever ready to ask the difficult question, says, ''How?'' I would have thought that the answer was quite simple: if a recreation committee is determined to put on a pop festival and the licensing authority delegates to that committee the power to determine whether to grant the licence for that entertainment, there is an immediate conflict of interest for the members of that committee, who are about to commit themselves to the pop festival enterprise—not financially, but as members of the local authority. They may be the executive members of that authority. An authority might delegate the licensing function to the executive of the authority, which had committed itself in principle to putting on a pop festival. Then, the executive could be asked to operate wearing its quasi-judicial hat, and might be asked to determine the licensing application that it had submitted for the running of that pop festival. I would consider that to be a profound conflict of interest.

Kevan Jones: Why?

Andrew Turner: I must cease to be taken in by every mouthed intervention that the hon. Gentleman makes; otherwise the Committee will last forever. There is a conflict of interest because someone who has set themselves a political purpose tends not to be in a judicial frame of mind when considering the law relating, not to that purpose, but to whether a planning application or a licence of that kind should be issued. It is important that the committee be in a judicial frame of mind.
 A second argument is that members of licensing—and planning—committees will need to be trained to ensure that they approach issues in a suitably judicial manner. I have been advised on the subject by my local authority's head of paid service. If the licensing committee is to be trained, but people who can exercise the power but are not on the licensing committee are not, there may be defects in the decisions that the latter take. It is inappropriate to delegate a licensing decision to a non-licensing committee, first because of the lack of training—unless, of course, the Minister intends to write a requirement for training into the Bill—and secondly because of the danger of a conflict of interest. 
 Amendment No. 94 would allow certain things to be done in urgent cases. I recognise that things may sometimes be urgent, but it is easy for local authorities to leave the preparation and presentation of reports until they become urgent, and then they are not bound by the same rules as they would be if they had not left them. That is a loophole that needs to be plugged, not 
 only in this case but in a range of local authority business. Indeed, Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills have plugged similar loopholes with regard to governing bodies; there is now a definition of ''urgent''. 
 Amendment No. 93 would require a licensing authority to ask the licensing committee before handing its power to another committee. Of course, I understand why subsection (5)(b) is included, but I would have thought that subsection (5)(a) was rather more important, and that the licensing authority should consult the licensing committee before the committee gave up a power, or had a power taken away from it by the executive or by the recreation committee. 
 Finally, amendment No. 95 sets out the conditions in which it may be inappropriate for the licensing committee to discharge its functions. If it cannot discharge a function because many of its members have a conflict of interest, it is not unreasonable that the matter should be discharged elsewhere. Otherwise, however, it is not appropriate for something to be referred willy-nilly to other committees of the authority.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious attempt to rewrite the way in which local authorities work, but it is beyond the scope of the Bill to do so. He is trying to create a model of excellence that could be replicated elsewhere. The trouble is that I am unsure whether many of us agree with his model.
 Lying behind the amendments is a fear that local authorities cannot be fully trusted to discharge their licensing and other statutory functions properly. As I have made clear, I do not share those concerns and I am worried that the amendments would limit the ability of local authorities to carry out those functions in an efficient and timely manner, and in the best interests of the community that they serve. 
 As drafted, the Bill allows licensing authorities in respect of a matter to refer the discharge of licensing functions to other local authority committees where that matter relates to the discharge of another local authority function as well as to the licensing function. In addition, it allows licensing committees to consider matters that cut across other local authority functions. Furthermore, unless the urgency of a particular case precludes it, where matters that touch on licensing are referred to another committee, that committee must consider a report from the licensing committee before reaching a decision. 
 Those arrangements will ensure that the licensing committee will have the necessary input, while allowing authorities the freedom to decide how best to discharge their functions. Amendments Nos. 100, 94 and 93 would undermine that position, and could lead to unnecessary delays in the exercising of licensing and in other functions of an authority. 
 Amendment No. 95 would require that where there is a conflict of interest preventing a number of members of the licensing committee from discharging a function, it must be referred back to the licensing 
 authority. I acknowledge that our position has changed since the publication of the White Paper—I was waiting for the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to say that, but he did not.

Andrew Turner: I did not notice.

Kim Howells: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for that.
 In the White Paper, we suggested that any councillor representing the ward in which premises that are the subject of proceedings are situated should not participate in the licensing decision. The intention was to avoid the possibility of elected individuals coming under undue pressure. However, I assure the Committee that we have looked into the matter and we are confident that existing provisions under local authority legislation governing the way in which local authorities discharge the functions vested in them already ensure that where it is improper for an individual to be involved in a licensing decision, self-disqualification would take place. There is no need to amend the Bill to reflect the fact that where councillors have, for example, a financial interest in the outcome of a decision, they should not be part of any decision. Existing provisions would apply. 
 I have every confidence that local authorities will be able to discharge their many functions effectively and impartially and that existing standing orders governing issues of propriety offer effective safeguards. The system set out in the Bill will ensure that licensing decisions benefit from the participation of councillors with knowledge of the local area and from a joined-up approach that allows licensing to be seen in the wider context of other local authority responsibilities. 
 I hope that as a result of those reassurances, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will withdraw his amendment.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the intent behind the amendment. I do not wish to re-engineer the whole process of local government in England and Wales—that would be too ambitious. I am not entirely happy with the hon. Gentleman's explanations, but I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in
clause 8, page 5, line 32, at end insert— 
 '(9A) Nothing in this Act shall detract from the right of an elected member of a council that is a licensing authority under this Act to address or write to the licensing committee or licensing authority in order to make representations to them on behalf of the residents of the ward or other electoral subdivision, or the authority which he represents. 
 (9B) No elected member making representations on behalf of local residents under subsection (9A) may participate in any decision made by the licensing committee or licensing authority concerning a matter about which he has made representations to them, either in public or in private.'.
 Amendment No. 86 deals with the functions of the licensing authority. It is an addition after clause 8(8), and would protect both the interests of local residents and those of the licence applicant by attempting to 
 ensure that local councils were transparent and impartial. The function of local councillors is, of course, to represent the views of local residents, who may, and will, object, and who may object in greater numbers, given some of the content of the Bill. Those people will object to their councillor about particular premises and applicants; that is their right and we would not want to undermine it. However, an individual councillor will represent the views of his local electorate to the licensing committee, to the full council, or simply to the officers in the first instance, to talk the problems through. Councillors may find themselves in a rather difficult position if they are also members of the licensing committee or sub-committee that would make a final decision.

Bob Blizzard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the guidance given to local government some years ago by Lord Nolan? He examined the issue in great detail in connection with planning, but there are parallels with the current debate. Lord Nolan made it clear that a member of such a committee must balance the heed he must take of statutory guidance with the views of his constituents. That contradicts the advice, referred to by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, that certain planning officers were sending out.
 Some people are elected to councils on a ''Stop the so and so planning application'' ticket, and in the context of the current debate, that may be a licensing ticket. If someone is elected because of a position they have taken, they cannot be debarred from putting forward the wishes of their electorate to a committee. Nolan was clear about that. There must be a balance. Someone should not be ruled out just because they have previously expressed a view.

Malcolm Moss: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I know from experience that individuals on the planning committee of one of my local councils were told by the council's solicitor not to take part in a discussion at all, because something was happening in the area in which they lived. We have gone to ridiculous lengths to prevent elected councillors from speaking their mind on all sorts of issues. I am simply highlighting yet another potentially compromising situation for those who may be approached by local residents on a big local issue. If councillors wanted to retain their seats, they might be pushed into representing strongly held views.

Jim Knight: Does not clause 14(3)(e) state that local ward councillors are interested parties? Therefore, they can make a representation according to the established practice of, and quasi-judicial functions carried out by, the local authority, which means they must approach a decision with an open mind. If a local ward councillor, or any other councillor, had previously stated their position they should not take part, because they would not be going into a decision with an open mind.

Malcolm Moss: I am not sure that I read it that way. Our amendment acknowledges the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, which is that councillors have a duty to represent those views—I would not stand against that. However, we are also saying in our proposed new subsection (9B) that having made such a representation, those councillors should absent
 themselves from any decisions on a licence for fear of their participation being perceived in a certain way. This is all about perception; Nolan is about perception. All the rules and regulations that come flooding down relating to the conduct of councillors, and even Members of Parliament, are about how people are perceived by the general public. We all have to be whiter than white.
 The proposed new subsection is simply an attempt to say, particularly to those who have opposed the switch from magistrates to local authorities, that there was in the main a trust that the magistracy would be impartial, and a belief that it had a good record of judging things on their merits and not being influenced politically—with a small or a big ''p''—as it did not rely on votes from local electorates to keep someone's place on the council. 
 This morning I referred to a situation that might arise just before an election, when a group of people would get together and make a big fuss about something. The local councillor would then be put in a difficult position. He might be on the side of the publican—the licence holder—but because of the fuss that had been caused, he might feel obliged to represent other views. Our proposed new subsection states that he should absent himself from the decision making related to such a case. That is clear cut. Having quickly read clause 14(3)(e), I am not convinced that the Bill means what the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) thinks it does. The Minister will no doubt clarify that in his response. 
 Amendment No. 86 is not new. It was tabled in a similar form in the other place, and was rejected by Government. We have returned to it because it addresses something that to date has not been properly answered; it has also been raised with Conservative Members, and we believe that it ought to be registered in the Bill for the sake of impartiality.

Kim Howells: The amendment would provide that nothing in the Bill would detract from the right of an elected member of a council that was a licensing authority to address or write to the licensing committee to make representations on behalf of their constituents or the authority that they represented. It then goes on explicitly to disqualify the elected representative from sitting on the licensing committee and judging the issue on which they have made representations on behalf of constituents. That constraint would not apply to representations on behalf of an authority.
 I shall deal with representations made on behalf of constituents first. The Government have tabled an amendment, which we will discuss later, that will, if accepted, overturn an amendment made to the Bill in another place. It will make Members of the European Parliament, Members of Parliament and local ward councillors interested parties in respect of the part of the Bill that deals with premises licences. Having the status of interested parties will enable them to make representations, as defined for the purposes of that part of the Bill, about premises licences, and to request a review. 
 We will attempt to overturn the amendment that was made in another place because we do not consider that such persons in their own right should have the ability to make representations. I stress the words ''in their own right'', as the Government accept that local councillors, MPs, MEPs, solicitors, friends, relatives or anyone else should be able to make representations on behalf of a local resident if asked to do so. There was nothing in the Bill as originally drafted to prevent that. 
 The effect of the provision does seem remarkable when first encountered. When I first read it, I thought, ''Hang on, I'm the MP for Pontypridd, and if I want to say something about an aspect of life in the constituency, I shall''—and I usually do, although the local authority does not often like it. I shall therefore try to explain why the provision is not quite as it seems. The subtle difference with amendment No. 86 is that in allowing representations to be made on behalf of constituents it would allow them to be made even when no constituent had asked for them. It cannot be right that such representations could be made without any request from the individual who would be directly affected by the issue in question. That would allow a councillor to challenge an application in a part of his ward even if those who lived around the premises in question were in favour it. 
 For example, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that he lived in the middle of Cowes, and if licensed premises in his street or near his back garden were directly detracting from the quality his life and that of his neighbours, he would have a perfect right to object or to ask for a hearing. That is not the same as someone who may live many miles from such premises away grumbling about a licence application or wanting the licence to be modified. He may have been influenced by a lobby organisation. All of us in the Room are subjected to approaches by national lobbying organisations.

Malcolm Moss: I am not sure that I heard the Minister correctly. Referring to a local ward councillor covered by clause 14(3)(e), I think that he said that the way in which we worded the first part of amendment No. 86 would mean that an elected councillor could make representations to the licensing committee of a council on behalf of local people who had not approached him to do so, and that he could take such action off his own bat if he personally objected to what was happening. A person cannot represent local people unless there are views to be represented.

Kim Howells: Absolutely; I have no beef with that argument. I have tried to make it clear what the position would be if there were no representation and no objection to a licence application. That is where the provision kicks in. If the local councillor who does not live in that part of town and is not directly affected by the problem decides off his own bat to object, even though no one has asked him to, that is the difference. I am not sure that there is a difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself on that matter, but I hope that I have made the position clear. We shall discuss MPs and MEPs later.

Andrew Turner: There may not be a difference between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire on the Front Bench, but that is not to say that there is not a difference between the Minister and his hon. Friends on the Back Benches. A councillor, like a Member of Parliament, is a representative, not a delegate. He is entitled to form a judgment on what is right or wrong for his area, even if no representations have been made to him. That sometimes happens. If, for example, elderly people's housing, or a home for those who are mentally infirm, adjoins a pub, it is possible that none of the residents will object, but that does not invalidate the idea that a councillor can act on their behalf. It certainly does not invalidate a councillor's ability to make representations on their behalf.

Kim Howells: I am not for one minute arguing that we should prevent a councillor from making representations on behalf of residents who object to a licence application. I have made that clear time and again. We object to members of the council that sets up the licensing authority stepping in and objecting to an application, even though they would not be affected by it and not one objection has been made about it. Indeed, support for it may have been expressed. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said from a sedentary position that he was not objecting to that. I am trying to clarify the distinction between a councillor who acts on behalf of someone and a councillor who takes it on himself or herself to object to a licence application.

Malcolm Moss: I am delighted that the Minister agrees with proposed new subsection (9A), in amendment No. 86. It is explicit. It does not refer to any elected member of a local authority, but to an elected member of council who makes representation
''on behalf of the residents of the ward or other electoral sub-division, or the authority which he represents.''

Kim Howells: Yes, I have made that clear.

Malcolm Moss: So you knew that?

Kim Howells: I should not conduct a conversation like that across the Room, Mr. Gale—nor shall I.
 The amendment would not make such persons interested parties for the purposes of the Bill, but it would achieve that effect indirectly. We cannot accept it, because such people are not professional experts in respect of the licensing objectives, or entitled to act in the capacity of an elected member of the council, a local resident or someone who is in business locally. As I have said, if the person is a local resident, that is a different matter. 
 The amendment would also expressly prevent a councillor making representations on behalf of constituents from being involved in decisions about the matter in question. One aim of the amendment may be to address specific fears that councillors might be involved in decisions about premises in their wards, as those are the premises that they or their constituents are likely to be worried about. 
 I expressed in a previous debate the Government's confidence in existing measures and mechanisms in 
 respect of the way in which local authorities discharge the functions vested in them. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney reinforced that argument when he referred to the Nolan rules, which are clear and specific. The amendment would also allow the elected member to make representations on behalf of the authority that he represents, a point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. We shall be discussing a relevant amendment later and, if accepted, it will overturn an amendment that was made in another place, which makes a licensing authority a responsible authority under the Bill. 
 The intention of that amendment is that a licensing authority in which the premises is situated should be able to object to an application for the grant of, or a variation of, a licence and complain about certain premises and thus give rise to a review of the licence. Amendment No. 86 would not make the licensing authority a responsible authority but, by allowing an elected member to make representations on its behalf, would give it a similar status by the back door. 
 The licensing authority itself will fulfil the role of deciding the merits of the application to grant or to vary a premises licence. In doing so, it will need to weigh the merits of any representations. If no representations were made about an application to grant or to vary a premises licence, the application must be granted in accordance with the proposal by the applicant. The licensing authority's discretion is engaged only when relevant representation has emerged. That allows there to be a considerable reduction in bureaucracy. It means that only potentially problematic premises would be the subject of more detailed scrutiny at a hearing. The others would be dealt with simply and administratively. 
 However, the proposed amendment would leave the system open to substantially more bureaucracy with the licensing authority, through its elected members. It would be able to challenge every application even though professional and expert bodies, such as the police and fire authority, and local residents were perfectly content. The licensing authority would also effectively be making representations or complaints to itself and then judging the merits of the representation. That is not ideal. It would disturb industry, which is concerned about the overly zealous behaviour of some local authorities. 
 Under the Bill, specialist local authority officers, such as environmental health officers, can make representations to the licensing authority on the basis of their expertise. Although they will form part of a local authority, their views and the capacity in which they make representations in fulfilling a separate statutory function to licensing functions are both technical and expert on, for example, noise penetration. It is entirely proper that their expert views should be engaged. 
 The amendment would broaden the approach to general issues, which is not appropriate in the context of the regulatory role that the local authority as the licensing authority will perform. In exercising its regulatory role when it is engaged, the licensing authority will have all the tools that it needs to reach 
 a decision on the competing interests in the overall public interest, being fully informed by the input from responsibilities authorities and interested parties. With that reassurance, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: The amendment has generated a fair amount of debate. I thought at one stage that the Minister agreed with the first part of the amendment. However, he rescued himself by saying that the words ''or the authority'', by allowing local councillors to represent the views of their electorate in the ward or the electoral sub-division that they represent, not the views of the authority, would compromise its main thrust. I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that the words ''the authority'' might enable a councillor to speak on behalf of his authority, without the representation and support from local residents to challenge various licence applications.
 If the Minister were content with most of the amendment, why has he thrown it out on the basis of a couple of words? I am surprised that he did not draft a Government amendment to say that such a proposal was fine, apart from the words ''or the authority'' that we have unfortunately left in the amendment. We shall be returning to clause 14(4)(e), which gives local authorities, as responsible authorities, the power in some respects to challenge certain decisions and become the arbiters of their own judgments. 
 I take on board the hon. Gentleman's argument about ''the authority''. On the basis of his ministerial response, unfortunately I shall have to retire, licking my wounds. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Requirement to keep a register

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in
clause 9, page 5, line 37, leave out from 'and' to end of line 38 and insert 
 'and all relevant contact details that the Secretary of State may by regulation require.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendment No. 9. 
 Amendment No. 167, in 
clause 9, page 5, line 45, leave out subsection (2).
 Amendment No. 168, in 
clause 9, page 6, line 3, at end insert 
 'except such as is necessary to cover the costs of providing access or making available a register'.
 Amendment No. 169, in 
clause 9, page 6, line 8, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
 Government amendments Nos. 12, 13, 46, 47 and 14.

Malcolm Moss: The clause is important, not least because the Government are wanting yet again to overturn an amendment that was introduced in another place, an amendment that was well debated
 at the time, and that had considerable support not only from those on the Conservative Benches, but people throughout—I use that word wisely—the industry that will be affected by the Bill.
 Amendment No. 87 has been overtaken somewhat by our lengthy debate on clause 4 stand part on a central licensing authority. We debated whether there should be a central register or database and received a concession from the Government that they will now begin to honour the White Paper's intention, which stated clearly that a central database or register will be established. 
 The amendment has also been overtaken by events, because the details issued by a local authority should not be on a central register, although the local authority will be required to put on a database information that is deemed important by the Secretary of State and made by regulation. That may have to follow as a result of the Government's concession to set up the register. We shall await their proposals about what they intend to include on it. 
 Through the clause, the Government are yet again seeking to centralise their influence and power, and have included some fairly unnecessary rules and regulations pertaining to the decision making of the local authorities involved. 
 We accept the need to impose the obligation to maintain a register, but detailing exactly how a local authority should keep that register seems unnecessary and unacceptable. If central Government desire of local authorities that they use some ingenuity or initiative in doing what they are supposed to, they should trust them to be capable enough of keeping a register, and credit them with some responsibility. 
 Amendment No. 168 ensures that the cost of implementing the requirements of the provisions will not be too onerous for the local authorities that will be assuming the role of licensing authority. The costs incurred by local authorities could be fairly substantial. Recent representation from the LGA has reflected some disquiet on its part that the costs of implementation are going up by the minute as we proceed through the Bill. 
 We would like to see changes made to the legislation so that those costs are minimised and, if at all possible, have a neutral effect on the issuing functions that local authorities will take up. Subsection (3) demands that all licensing authorities make necessary arrangements and provide facilities for the inspection of the register by any person who turns up during office hours. We believe that that particular measure is unnecessary and is an unnecessary cost imposition. 
 The local authority will probably have to make a room available for such facilities and have someone on tap to look after people who want to examine the register, and we feel that there are other ways of doing that than the ways suggested in the Bill. In any event, if that provision remains, local authorities ought to be reasonably remunerated in some way for providing that facility. It could be carried out through the 
 council's IT system as part of its website. That would not cost the council very much, and would be accessible to quite a lot of people. Some consideration should be given to the unnecessary bureaucratic and regulatory burden of the provision. 
 Amendment No. 169, which I referred to during this morning's sitting, removes the word ''may'' in subsection (6) and inserts the word ''shall''. We have asked for the amendment to be considered to give a clearer indication of the Government's intention to ensure that the Secretary of State will arrange for the central database register to be set up—a move that is supported throughout the industry, and by local authorities. Such a register seems a highly desirable and pragmatic way of ensuring that references that need to be made to the details on personal licences will be held centrally and kept up to date. That will obviously have a financial implication, which, as the Minister said in an earlier debate, will be less than the implementation of a central licensing authority. Nevertheless, it will cost a lot of money. The question of appropriate computer systems must be thought through and, in the Minister's words, that may be delayed for some time until the problems can be overcome. 
 Government amendment No. 9 would delete subsection (1)(d). That subsection was carried in the other place after a lengthy debate in which many speakers supported it. In deleting it, the Government are seeking to remove ''the name and address of any person who has an estate or interest in the premises'', which are the subject of the licence. There is an existing right to register interests in section 32(2) of the Licensing Act 1964, and the question why that right is not being maintained in the Bill obviously arises. 
 The Government have to explain why they deem it necessary not only to ignore that point in drawing up the first draft of the Bill, but to remove a sensible amendment from the other place. They have attacked subsection (1)(d) once in a negative way by not including the right, which is in the 1964 Act, in the Bill and once in a direct and obvious way by tabling a Government amendment indicating that they want nothing to do with it. The right already exists and should be preserved and linked to all situations in which the investment of the party with the superior interest is potentially threatened by actions by the designated premises supervisor or the premises owner, or in any other circumstances that may arise. 
 An owning company will often be in a position to promote licensing objectives through its contractual agreement with the tenant or lessee, which is support for the Government's licensing objectives from an important party with a vested interest. It seems sensible that the Government and that interest should be drawn into the licensing objectives, which were set out and discussed earlier. The ability to register an interest would enable the owning company to meet its reversionary interest in the event of the demise of a tenant, which could be useful to both parties in the event of death or incapacity. It would also be beneficial where a tenant suddenly disappears leaving a serious problem behind. It would mean that, 
 by virtue of its interest, the owning company can step in, quickly appoint a new personal licence holder and continue trading without too much of a hiatus. 
 The beneficiary of the superior legal interest, which is protected, is entitled as a matter of natural justice to seek to ensure that its interest in the property—the value of which is linked to a significant degree to the possession of the premises licence—is indeed properly recognised. Over the past decade, we have seen the growth of companies with hundreds, if not thousands, of pub outlets—we will not name names. That has been a feature of the past few years, and many of those companies rely on their quotations in the City and on their share price for running their businesses and further expansion. In that regard, Opposition Members think it important to recognise that the City will look at the legislation relating to those businesses. If they can see a situation in which the so-called owner of the business does not have legal backing or the ability to solve local problems with its tenants and managers, the value of that business might not be deemed to be as high as perhaps it should be. 
 This is a very practical measure. No matter which way one looks at it, it makes sense. It makes sense from the industry's point of view—and we know that its representatives have consistently and seriously lobbied the Minister and his Department. It has not met with any objections that I am aware of, from any serious and involved quarter. There may well be a question mark over the individuals who run or manage such enterprises and outlets. Some may fear that if this overriding, overarching interest is too closely set out and detailed in the legislation, their security of tenure and position will be in some way undermined, in which case, that must be considered. However, it is my understanding that the people involved have looked at the matter carefully and are happy for the amendment made in the other place to stand. They are totally against the Government's intention, in amendment No. 9, to remove it. 
 I know that many other Committee members want to speak to the amendment. This is a very important point, which has been alluded to on many occasions, not least in the other place. We shall oppose the Government's intentions.

John Grogan: I intend to try the patience of my silent and good friend the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp), by following the line of argument of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and expressing a little scepticism about the need for amendment No. 9. I try my hon. Friend's patience for two reasons: first, it briefly makes me feel alive on a long Tuesday afternoon in what the Minister called this mediaeval monastery; secondly, amendments Nos. 9, 12 and 13 fall a little below the standard of perfection of other amendments that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has come up with.
 As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, a right to register interests already exists in the Licensing Act 1964. Why is it a bad thing to have a register including not only the 
 designated premises supervisor but, perhaps, the company that owns a pub and so on? 
 The reason for my scepticism about the amendments is not primarily the interests of the pub companies, although clearly there is a legitimate interest for them in overseeing their estate and there are effects on employment and the community if, for example, someone absconds and the licensing authority does not know with whom to get in touch. However, my primary reason is that a register of interests would enable the licensing objectives to be more speedily enforced if there were a problem. If there were a problem with a licensed premises such as a pub or its landlord and the licensing authority needed to take action, it would surely be a good thing to have a register of interests, so that the pub company could be told of the problem instantly by the licensing authority and could probably nip it in the bud. 
 When I have spoken to Ministers about that and about the reasons why the Government oppose the amendment passed in the other place, the arguments come back that the interests of big business dominate the amendment and tenants do not want it, and that it is overly bureaucratic and the Local Government Association does not want it because it would cost too much to enforce. 
 I spent my lunchtime doing two things: trying to establish whether Saddam Hussein had indeed been killed earlier this morning and also over my ham sandwich ringing the relevant people to determine their attitude to the measure. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to have a quick word with the Minister before speaking this afternoon—I arrived just as the Committee began. 
 I first rang the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations, which represents tenants, if anyone does. It faxed a letter to the Minister today noting that as long ago as September 2002 it had reached an agreement with the British Beer and Pub Association that 
''the immediate landlord should have the right to his interest being recorded in the register''.
 To be fair, it did want various assurances. I shall not go through the entire letter for reasons of time, but, basically, it wants to ensure that the 
''registration of an interest does not entitle the landlord to any additional rights over the holder of the premises licence beyond that already enjoyed under present legislation.''
 I do not see why it would, because that clearly comes under contractual law and is completely distinct from the provision. The FLVA noted that it wants to be involved in any consultations on the subject and ended its letter to the Minister by stating: 
''The FLVA would be happy to enter into discussions with the LGA, the Government, the industry and the police to further progress this issue.'' 
That was the view of the tenants. Clearly, they are not violently opposed to the measure. 
 I then rang the Local Government Association. Again, I shall not read the full text of its reply. Incidentally, it was sent as an e-mail to me not the Minister, but I would be happy to forward it. The LGA stated that it 
''would be happy to support the proposal of a register for property owners to be able to record their interests on a premises licence where their property is leased to a separate personal licence holder''.
 The e-mail lists various matters that the association would like to discuss, such as the cost of registering an interest. I contacted the British Beer and Pub Association, which said that it would be prepared to talk to the LGA positively about marginal extra costs. So it appears that the tenants and the LGA are not opposed in principle to the measure. 
 Finally, I consulted one of the big, evil pub companies in whose interest the amendment supposedly was passed. Simon Townsend, the customer services director of Enterprise Inns, wrote to the Minister to explain his company's position. I shall try the patience of the Committee for just a few more seconds and read a couple of paragraphs from the letter: 
''As the owner of a large number of licensed premises operating under leased and tenanted agreements, we feel that it is hugely important for us to be able to maintain and manage our interests in the premises licence, not just in order to protect our commercial interests, but also to be able to play our full part in the accountability of the licence holder to the local community, and our belief in the importance of a local pub at the heart of its community.
We believe that the interests of local communities, local authorities, law enforcement officers and individual licensees will be best served if we are required to be informed of any specific threats or proposed changes to a premises licence . . .
As regards proposed changes to a premises licence, we believe that the concerns for additional administrative burden are quite misplaced. If anything, the process of informing us as owners of the business, would ensure that a consolidated approach to proposed changes could take place . . . We believe that the administration involved would be little more than 'ticking the appropriate box' at the time of an application.
We have received the support of trade representatives of tenants and lessees for this course of action, and were heartened to see an amendment''
 passed in the House of Lords. 
 It is not entirely clear that the world is against the amendment that was agreed in another place. The LGA made a happy suggestion. It said that it would be happy to participate in any discussions to further the issue. The LGA, the tenants and the British Beer and Pub Association agree to do that. 
 The civil servants in the Department were convinced that everything in the Bill about churches and music was right. Like us all, perhaps they make the occasional mistake. Our discussion this morning on the database provided a model by which all the parties get together to reach an agreement. That would have been unthinkable even six weeks ago when the Bill was in another place. I commend a similar approach for this clause.

Nick Harvey: I shall also speak briefly against Government amendment No. 9. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made a good case for why we should resist it, but that was as nothing compared with the tour de force that we have just had from the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), whose misspent lunch hour will not have done anything to endear him to Her Majesty's
 Government or improve his chances of a Government position, but I fancy that he probably did not entertain great hopes in that department in any case.

Kim Howells: It is well known that, outside the remit of the Committee, my hon. Friend is a rising star and on his behalf I certainly want to criticise the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Harvey: I entirely share the Minister's appreciation of the hon. Member for Selby. I am just disappointed that it has not yet resulted in the hon. Gentleman's call to office. I await the next reshuffle with interest.
 The hon. Member for Selby made a good point. The owners of premises, who in some cases are chains, have a legitimate interest and that should be recorded, both from the practical point of view of their being able to help when problems arise and because not allowing them to have that interest registered strikes at the heart of the Government's decision to separate premises licences from personal licences, which in a sense was a laudable aim but one that the Government have rowed back from slightly since they set out down that path. 
 The premises themselves, as opposed to who is running them, should be viewed separately. If we are to do that adequately and meaningfully, we must maintain on the central register the vital information about who the owners of the premises are. Whether premises should be licensed and whether the current tenant or licence holder has been doing a good job of running the establishment are separate questions. The Government are making a mistake in trying to undo the amendment. In the light of the information that we have received that all the relevant parties appear to be content with what was done to the clause in the other place, or with some variation on what was done, and are interested in discussing it further, I urge the Government not to reject the provision as they seem to intend to do.

Mark Field: I, too, shall speak briefly. I certainly would not want to usurp the role of the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) as the careers adviser for the hon. Member for Selby, but from his comments this morning I assumed that his decision to become an officer of the all-party beer group was made very much with his long-term career prospects in mind. Given that Selby is a target seat of my party, perhaps I should have said ''with his short-term career prospects in mind.'' Who knows?
 I entirely agree with the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. It seems perverse that the Government are going to such trouble to row back from the sensible amendment that was agreed in the other place. Given the Government's views, I can understand why they wish to reverse some of their nine losses in the other place, but this change seems perverse. Really, there seems little point in having a register without knowing the name and address of the person who has an estate or interest in the premises. 
 When we were discussing the previous group of amendments, the Minister mentioned that he had considered the expert views of environmental health officers. I always get worried whenever expert views are mentioned. Expert views are often to be questioned, rather than to be given yet more credence. As a practical proposition, it seems odd that the Government wish to overturn the proposal from the other place. I hope that the Minister will be able to give robust reasons why he feels that a complete and comprehensive register should exclude what one might imagine would be basic information.

Kim Howells: Before I deal with the Government amendments, I want so speak about amendments Nos. 87, 167, 168 and 169. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby who came charging on to the battlefield like the fifth cavalry. The Committee will remember what happened to them. I must tell my hon. Friend that the LGA is an interesting body because it seems to hold different views simultaneously. It is a democracy, but if it changes its mind from hour to hour we shall have something to say about that.
 On cost, I must ask my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire what difference it would make for the BBPA to talk to local authorities about costs. They will be permanent and ongoing throughout the years and not one-off, as those for registration will be. The costs are, therefore, unlimited and would have to be paid from the annual charges paid by tenants, not landlords. If I were cynical, I would be worried that there was some confidence trickery going on—I am not implicating my hon. Friend—but we shall come to that in a moment or two.

Malcolm Moss: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: No.
 Amendment No. 87 is not necessary and would have undesirable effects. It would add to the list of information to be kept in the licensing register set out in the Bill all relevant contact details that the Secretary of State may set out in regulations. The amendment is unnecessary because clause 9(1)(e) provides that the Secretary of State may set out in regulations such other information as may be prescribed. 
 Leaving the detailed contents of licensing registers to secondary legislation provides for a degree of flexibility. Should it be necessary to amend the list of prescribed information to be contained on the register in the light of experience or future developments, we will not have to wait for the opportunity to amend primary legislation, which is an important consideration. Furthermore, by prescribing such further information in secondary legislation, we will ensure consistency and transparency throughout all licensing authorities. 
 Amendment No. 87 would also remove the requirement for licensing authorities to keep a record of personal licences issued. For reasons that I set out in detail when speaking to Government amendment No. 44, I ask that amendment No. 87 be withdrawn. When discussing amendment No. 44 and the amendments grouped with it, we had a useful debate 
 about the provisions in the Bill to establish a central licensing database. Although the drafting of the Bill is flexible so that implementation of the new regime can go ahead in the absence of a single, central system, the Government are committed to setting up such a system. That is why I cannot accept amendment No. 167, which would remove the power to make regulations as to the form and manner of licensing authority registers. 
 If we are all committed to a central database, as the Government are and as I feel Opposition Members are, there will come a point when data held severally by individual licensing authorities will need to be transferred under the central system. That process will be made considerably easier if licensing authorities record the same information in the same way. Amendment No. 167 would undermine that sensible objective and I hope that it will not pressed. 
 For similar reasons, I cannot accept amendment No. 169, which would remove the flexibility that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State to determine when it would be appropriate for details to be recorded on the central register. 
 Amendment No. 168 would allow the licensing authority to charge people to view the licensing register. I thought that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire over-egged the pudding. I understand completely that licensing authorities may wish to charge when, for example, they provide photocopies of information in the register. Surely it is too much to ask people who may be concerned, such as local residents, to pay just to see the information. Putting that information on the local authority web site is a useful suggestion, and there may be ways of considering that, but we cannot accept the amendment as it stands. 
 The Government certainly think that local residents, for example, should be able to see such information in the register without having to pay. That is why we resist the amendment. This is supposed to be an open and transparent system. Charging people for access to information in that way will place a barrier in the way of local people and I hope that amendment No. 168 will not be pressed to a Division. 
 On the Government amendments, the issue of registered interests had a good airing in another place. The purpose of this group of Government amendments is to restore the Bill to its original position following changes accepted there. The amendments would remove from the Bill references to persons having a registered interest in the premises affected. The changes were pressed for by some parts of the pub industry—we have heard all about that—and we have discussed the matter with it at great length. Although we are offering the pub industry considerably more flexibility and less red tape, we have not been able to agree with it on the subject. I shall try to explain why. 
 The Government believe that a licence holder's responsibility in respect of his licence is to the licensing authority, and that if a tenant is in dispute with the owner or lessee of the property, that is not a matter for licensing law. The Bill is about the carrying on of 
 licensable activities, not regulating interests in land. The Bill will improve on the current situation by providing a clear focus on matters that properly concern the licensing regime. Under the current system, which ties alcohol licences to the individual running the business on any premises, it makes more sense for those with an interest in the premises, often pub companies and breweries, to be able to register an interest. 
 If a pub manager leaves, the old licence must be transferred by the justices to the new manager, with a full hearing before the justices and decisions on whether the new manager is a fit and proper person. However, under the new system set out in the Bill, which splits the personal and premises licence, any pub operating company will be able to hold a premises licence itself and designate a manager as the premises supervisor. The Bill does not require the managers or tenants to hold a premises licence. When the premises licence holder wants to change the premises supervisor, there will therefore be no need for any hearing, just a simple notification—unless, exceptionally, the police elect to intervene. That is a significant reduction in red tape. 
 Notification of matters relating to licensable activities can be a requirement of the contractual relationship between the operating company and the manager, or the landlord and the tenant. Those with an interest in premises may avail themselves of protections in property law, such as registering a caution against dealings with premises, but those matters are properly outside the sphere of the regulatory regime, and are properly matters of private law. Before the Bill was amended, it set out quick and easy procedures to deal with transfers and changes of premises licences. 
 An interim authority notice can be given following the death, insolvency or mental incapacity of a licence holder. That reinstates the licence for two months, during which time an application for transfer can be made. Clause 47(2) sets out who can give such an interim authority notice. I would like to emphasise that, with a view to providing for continuity of business, it is intended that clause 47(2)(a), which refers to a person who 
''has a prescribed interest in the premises concerned'',
 will capture pub operating companies and owners of premises. At least one of the changes made in another place would therefore replicate provision for some of those whom it is already intended to cover. 
 Alternatively, in the case of death, insolvency or mental incapacity of the premises licence holder, or when a licence is surrendered, if it is known who will take over the business, a transfer of the premises licence may be applied for with immediate interim effect. Although the pub industry wants the concept of registered interest, that, of course, applies only to the big players in the industry. Many of the licensees in our constituencies will be tenants, and I am confident that several of those would not like that kind of control given to their landlords, some of whom may be 
 banks or property developers, not to mention pub companies. 
 Indeed, the big companies would expect to pay a few pounds for registering their interest, but the cost and bureaucracy that flow from the scheme, which sees large numbers of modifications and consents flying backwards and forwards between the companies and the licensing authorities, would not fall on them. Additional costs would have to be recovered by increasing the main fees for premises licences and annual charges. The tenants who hold the licences will have to pick up those costs and will probably pass them on to their customers. Notice of any surrender would be recorded on the licensing authority register, and could be accessed. Furthermore, there is no requirement to notify a landlord of surrender of a justices' licence under the current regime. If the Government amendments are accepted, the Bill will still offer protections for business, provide quick and simple procedures where changes are needed and require licensing authorities to record and make available information about all authorisations and notices. 
 The Bill must remain focused on matters that properly relate to licensing. However convenient it may be to the pub industry, the Bill cannot become a means of addressing issues that are the concern of contractual arrangements between parties, which are subject to private law. We must therefore restore this part of the Bill to its original form.

Malcolm Moss: There we have it. The Minister has said it all, and not an inch has been given. There was not even an acknowledgement that all these good people have got together over lunch—today or yesterday—and agreed that there is not a problem. The Minister has just said that in his opinion the licensed victuallers are totally against the Government, but that is not the case. The hon. Member for Selby made that point after having spoken to them by telephone today—and, no doubt, having been in contact with them regularly during the past few weeks. The industry certainly wants the provision in the Bill, and nowhere in the arguments that I offered to the Committee did I hint at serious problems between the owner and the tenant or manager.
 The provision could be helpful to the police, for example, if they turned up at premises where there were serious problems, the designated premises licence holder was not around, and the personal licence holder had disappeared. It would be in the interests of the police to know exactly who to approach to say, ''Your interest here in this location is in serious jeopardy, and it's up to you sort out the situation.'' I had a constituency case some months ago in which there were complaints about the state of a pub car park. A representation to the landlord or tenant bore no fruit, but I was able to contact the owner of the premises—it was a brewery—and within two days I had an answer, and action. If the public knew who had a vested interested in the premises it would be helpful in more ways than one in tackling some of the key objectives that we have been discussing, in particular those relating to law and order and public nuisance. 
 The Minister talked about flexibility, but I do not think for a moment that the Government's intention will render greater flexibility. He talked about a case in which the designated premises licence holder had been changed by the premises licence holder. He said that a simple notification to that effect would suffice. However, our understanding of the Bill is that such a change would be a variation, so a whole new licence would have to be applied for. Perhaps the Minister could clarify what he meant. It is not our understanding that such changes can be effected easily by simple notification. We thought that if there were a fundamental change of licence holder, that would constitute a variation and a new application would have to be made. That is not decreasing the bureaucracy; in our opinion, it is dramatically increasing it. 
 We believe that if the interest of the owner of the premises is noted in that way, owners will take a greater interest in their pubs and outlets. Given all the other provisions in the Bill that may militate against their interests, licence holders will want to ensure that the individuals on the ground running their enterprises are complying with the law, and are doing so in a way that will not attract the type of opprobrium, problems, objections and complaints that could make their businesses suffer if licences were withheld for any reason. 
 Licence holders therefore have a vested interest in knowing what is happening in the various outlets—for some chains, that means in hundreds of different outlets. With the best will in the world, and perfect management, there will always be problems. The provision simply highlights the fact that licence holders have an interest and can act positively to fulfil the Government's aims and objectives if they are encouraged and brought on board. The amendment introduced by their lordships strengthens rather than weakens the legislation. 
 I am happy to withdraw my amendments. I have already said that amendment No. 87 has been overtaken by our discussion on an earlier clause. However, we shall oppose amendment No. 9, because we believe that clause 9(1)(d) has almost universal support. There is support from Back-Bench Labour Members and from the Conservatives. I cannot speak for the Liberal Democrats, but no doubt they will pipe up in a moment to say that they are in favour of retaining that provision. Perhaps they have already done so. [Interruption.] I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for North Devon; he already has said that. 
 The provision also has the support of the trade—the British Beer and Pub Association. If representatives from the Local Government Association are listening to our deliberations, they should reconsider what they are telling component parts of the Committee and the Government, because we seem to be getting mixed messages. However, my understanding, which was corroborated by the hon. Member for Selby, is that the LGA is happy for the provision to remain in the Bill. As for the Licensed Victuallers Association, although it expresses concern about interpretation and wants a guarantee that the provision will not undermine its rights under present 
 legislation, it is happy to see the provision stay in the Bill. 
 At no time did the Minister attempt to justify this fundamental shift. He did not explain the necessity of changing the right enshrined in the Licensing Act 1964, why that provision has not worked, or why it is working against the public interest. Why is the right for those involved in the trade being removed?

Kim Howells: I apologise; I should have explained that the existing right in the 1964 Act makes sense because managers hold the only licence and their employers do not. Under the new system in the Bill, the employer—the business—would normally hold the premises licence, so the two arguments cannot be properly compared. It is like comparing chalk and cheese.

Malcolm Moss: I am not sure that I agree. Why else would those who have an interest in the premises argue for the retention of the provision in the Bill? The Minister shrugs his shoulders; he does not know. I shall move on. We shall oppose the amendment, and I suspect that the subject will return on Report if we are defeated and the Government get their way today. The issue is important, it seems that there is universal agreement on it—[Interruption.]

Kim Howells: No.

Malcolm Moss: The only people who do not agree are the Minister and his officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Opposition, and many people with a vested interest in retaining the provision, think that he and his Department have set their face against it. Hitherto, no powerful arguments have been brought forward to justify its removal by amendment No. 9.
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 9, in 
clause 9, page 5, line 41, leave out paragraph (d).—[Dr. Howells.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 3 agreed to. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Five o'clock till Thursday 10 April at five minutes to Nine o'clock.